The shootings and the campaign

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

3 shootings in a week recently, 1 in Nebraska, 2 in Colorado against evangelicals, each time, these sorts of shooting make the headlines of French TV news.

Did it create movements of population who want to take measures to prevent it?

What impact have and could have in the future these shootings and their consequence in the population on the presidency campaign?

Does it play in favor of the conservatives like Romney and Huckabee or more in favor of the ones like Clinton, Giuliani and Obama?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Was Columbine the first of these shootings in USA? I mean a teenager with big guns who choose a place to shoot a maximum of peoples in it.

Do these shootings become "normal" in USA...?!?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Was Columbine the first of these shootings in USA? I mean a teenager with big guns who choose a place to shoot a maximum of peoples in it.

Do these shootings become "normal" in USA...?!?

Columbine was the worst, and still is.

No, that actually isn't true.  More people died in the Virginia Tech shootings than in the Columbine shootings.

I was thinking about high schools specifically, but, yes, Virginia Tech was worse.

(Although the Bath School disaster, which didn't involve guns, trumped both.)

I don't know if a competition between shootings is a good idea and I don't know if the victim's families do a classification.

Then it's interesting to know what has happened and when. Thank you for "Bath School disaster", I had never heard about it.

Was Columbine the first of these shootings in USA? I mean a teenager with big guns who choose a place to shoot a maximum of peoples in it.

Do these shootings become "normal" in USA...?!?

Columbine wasn't the first, but it was the most-publicized up to that point.

I wouldn't say mass-shootings are "normal" in that it's unlikely that you or even anyone you know will ever be personally affected by one, but they do happen here more often than in other countries.

Yes, I know these shootings are some exceptions in stable countries but what I asked it is if peoples, when they hear about shootings and see it on TV news, are not really surprised and say something like "one more shooting", as we could have said a few months ago "one more bomb attempt in Irak", if you know what I mean.

My question was: are peoples in USA less and less shocked about these sorts of shooting?

Was Columbine the first of these shootings in USA? I mean a teenager with big guns who choose a place to shoot a maximum of peoples in it.

Do these shootings become "normal" in USA...?!?

Not as "normal" as a car fire in Paris that's for sure.

OK, I must answer, even if that's not really the subject.

In France, when we had our riots in November 2005, we also was looking how do the foreign press spoke about it, especially foreign TVs. And you have to know that we were very surprised that a lot of them shew a France "on civil war", that was not. Some TVs in Russia (and maybe FOX news if my memory is good) spoke about some Muslim attacks (CNN has also produced cards of France where French cities were mixed and they put some of them in Swiss and Germany).

Clearly it was hot in maximum 2/3 of poor suburbs in France and very hot in big maximum 1/4 of them. And it was just some burnings, spectacular, very destructive, but not hurting. Even if recently in a small riot in November, some policemen have been shot by rioters but not killed. So it was big, spectacular, but it was the first time and just concerning the territories where live about maximum 10% of French population. There are here or there small riots but they are exceptionnal. Maybe you or others were aware about these things but I think it's good to remind them.

So yes, I think you're right when you say that these sorts of shooting are as normal as a car burning in Paris but you should have say as poor suburbs riots in France. Because first, there are regularly a few cars which burn here or there in French poor suburbs (I think this might happen in every poor suburbs all around the world, poor or rich countries), and then it is not in Paris, but surround Paris, its poor suburbs, in Paris there are quite only very rich people, more and more.

Statistics show that if you have a pool, a firearm and one or more children on your property, your children are far more likely to drown in the pool than be killed by your firearm. As a result of this, should we outlaw pools? Or should we just heavily regulate pools? Should we constantly tell parents how to parent and what they can see, hear, read, own, and do in the privacy of their own homes? OR maybe, AND THIS IS A STARTLING MAYBE for some folks, we should instead have a government that allows law-abiding citizens to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes so long as they do not unlawfully harm others? A nation cannot prosper if its citizens are crippled by a Big Brother-style of government. People need to be free to make choices and take responsibility for their actions. Should they screw up, they need to face the consequences them self. The government should not function like a big brother, supposedly looking out for citizens with huge bureaucracies and a long list of laws and regulations. That is not how a nation and its people progress and prosper to the greatest degree possible.

Just like prohibition did not end the sale and consumption of alcohol, "gun control" at the national level would not solve the problems of gun proliferation and the misuse of firearms.  Just look at neighboring Canada, for example. Their "gun control" has produced nothing more than further government bureaucracy and, as an extension, fewer tax dollars for truly essential national endeavors such as education, infrastructure, defense spending and scientific/technological research. The misuse of firearms has not gone down, they also have problems with gun crimes on their streets and in their schools, so why did they waste billions of dollars on "gun control"? It produced nothing except further government bureaucracy. I strongly doubt America, a nation with a population ten times larger than Canada's, would be able to produce a different result.

When it all comes down to it, a gun is a tool that has been used for numerous purposes the past few centuries. All law-abiding citizens ought to have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. If they choose to defend them self with a firearm, and they properly maintain and care for their firearm, I do not think any government has the right to say, "No, that is not permissible." That is a step away from freedom and towards totalitarianism. That is not where we want to head in the 21st Century.

Just because an incredibly tiny minority of a select few decide to misuse a tool for evil, criminal purposes, the government should pass a law that prohibits all law-abiding citizens from owning and using that same tool for defensive purposes? That is a slippery slope that would be a huge step towards 1984. Such measures are anti-freedom and, as such, I reject them vehemently.

Politico, maybe I will say that because I'm French and so my culture is different of the American culture (even if French culture and all other cultures are less and less different of the American culture, it's absolutely not a reproach, it's a report), but in France, we consider it is the role of the Police to protect peoples and so "gun control" is big. It's not a problem for liberties and criminality with guns is fair.

Then, you spoke about Canada. I don't know for whole Canada, but I know for Quebec (French-speaking party of Canada). The biggest problem in Quebec with guns, it is... USA. Montreal, biggest city of Quebec, 2nd city of Canada with 3 millions of peoples, which has also criminality problems is at 70 km of US border (about 35 miles) and all the ones who want guns pass the border and can buy totally legally a gun sold on the other side without being controlled by US or Canadian duties when they return in their country. That's a big problem for the Police in Quebec and especially in Montreal. So in this case, maybe it is not "gun control" which is bad but it is a badly done "gun control".

To finish, we can't say gun is a tool, like a pool or even like a knife. With a pool maybe a child can fall in, maybe two. With a knife, you can go in a mall or a school or else and kill one people or two, but quickly, peoples will jump on you and they will stop you, maximum you can take an hostage. With a gun, and especially with some sorts of which are allowed in USA but even with a normal one, you can quickly and easily kill several peoples without being stopped and it is more hard to stop you. A gun is not a tool, it's a very dangerous tool and I think it's good to adapt laws with it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, Politico, I'll join my position to Polnut and Gabu. It seems it comes from the culture. In France, it's maybe cause we don't think that we can be attacked at each corner by someone or by someone with guns that we trust Police, even if for sure they can't be everywhere at the time. But the most important is that we trust the other ones to not attack us. To be attacked by someone is a fair fear in France. And as I said we have a strong "gun control" which is not a problem for liberties and democracy (they are other really bigger important problems for them, be sure of this) and criminality with guns is fair in France. So maybe there is a big part which comes from the culture, but cultures are not here to be frozen, they move, and maybe it would be good to try to spread the trusting in others than to spread the fear of others. I know it's easy to say, but if you don't try, you'll never succeed.

Then, please, it's not hard to acknowledge that a gun, even the most normal one, is a very dangerous "tool" with the one you can kill or damage really easily peoples with it more than with any other tools. It's the most dangerous "tool" that exists and I still think it's good to adapt laws with it.

Then, it's a tool which encourage the mistrust in others. If we accept that someone has one for his defense, the other will think ("Oho, he could attack me with it, I should have one"), and so will think an other, and so an other, etc.

Then, I think also it's not really hard to acknowledge that selling guns as easily as these are sold in USA is making the criminality with guns more easy. In Quebec, if "gun control" was better with the close US border, criminals and gangs will have more troubles to get the weapons which make the crime easy to do that are guns.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I respect the differing views on the subject and can understand the personal decision not to possess a firearm. That said, I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to the following question:

Why should law-abiding individuals not be able to choose whether or not to own a firearm in the privacy of their own home?

I believe that law-abiding adults are capable of making a personal decision about how to best protect them self. I believe that law-abiding adults should be given the right to defend them self from criminals should their life ever become endangered. Finally, I believe that a nation is far less likely to turn away from democracy and head towards totalitarianism if a significant amount of its populace is armed. For all of the above reasons, I strongly believe law-abiding individuals should not be prohibited from choosing for them self whether or not to own a firearm. It is a personal choice best left up to each law-abiding individual in the nation, not the government.

To answer you, I can just send you back to my last message of this topic, all the arguments are in to contradict you and to show you that if you want to choose safety and serenity for a country, you need to choose gun control.

Then you can also watch the statistics posted by the others to strengthen my arguments.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

We should have gun control "because it is safer"? I'm not quite sure that allowing only the government to possess firearms is "safe." If anything, it would make it much easier for a government to turn towards totalitarianism. What could the people possibly fight them with? Rocks and stones? Good luck with that.

Please, no matter you have guns or else, if a government turns toward totalitarianism, he'll have the army with it, it's not your riffles and your magnums which could stop it. Then, most of time totalitarianism can work cause the majority of the population is OK for it, watch the 20th century's history to check it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Outside of the fact I don't see what this do here, and how you can compare sex with gun ownership, you can just doing the promotion of condoms.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Sorry, I had put one part of my answer in your quote, maybe you have not seen it. I corrected it.